This is a lesson for all of us, but especially for me: Power owns truth. Believing is seeing.
Working in oil and gas as I have all these years, I have met and worked with technically brilliant people. The science of finding oil in the ground is one that requires both high intelligence and nuance – the technical data tells them things, but they have another voice that plays along side that data and offers another interpretation. That is high intelligence – not a rote reading of data, but an integration of data and experience, scientific knowledge and sideways vision. That is the case with every serious profession out there except economics. And yet these same brilliant people fall for easily detected political lies, impossible coincidence and manufactured evidence. Power owns truth.
I can be played, like anyone, based on my sympathies. Apple computers are just like all other computers, but their advertising created an aura, and I bought in. I’m older now and can see through advertising, and movies have to be very good to even be memorable. But our churches are filled with older people who are still muttering the prayers embedded in their minds in their youth, turning their money over to the likes of Pat Robertson. He’s an actor, a man who is knowingly fleecing people, becoming a billionaire in the process. It is no surprise the that he ran for president, merely taking the act to another level. (It is also no surprise to learn that Billy Graham urged Richard Nixon to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam, killing maybe two million people. It appears from evidence up there that our military murderers tried and failed.) Politics and religion are variations on the same theme.
This the human condition. It will not change. All that we can do is find other people like us and work for those good things we want. We don’t need a huge following. It only takes a few people. We only need a common objective. Democracy is a joke, as enough people can always be fooled to preserve the existing power arrangement. Obama was voted to power after all – as easy as it is to see through him, in the public mind he can fly through a steel building without encountering resistance.
All it takes is a small group of dedicated people to make change happen. They don’t succeed by standing on a soapbox, but rather by using intelligence and experience seeking maximum bang for buck. Strategery. If change does not happen, that small group of dedicated people still have optimism of spirit.
_____________________
PS: 
Again, look at this video. No matter what powerful people say, no matter that pretty people who read scripts on TV says, no matter that a book store clerk in Bozeman, MT says he has the mathematical formula that proves it can happen, that Newton was wrong, this cannot be. It cannot happen. It did not happen. If you think it did, power owns your perceptions.
Piece of Mindful 
The following is full of opinion and speculation.
Ego-conscious thinking represents a fraction of one’s psychic capacity. It dominates human existence in western culture, making us easy prey for propaganda of any color or fashion. Institutions lock in perceptions and power by keeping you separate from your unconscious (subconscious). Intellegence without access to one’s unconscious is not much of an improvement over cookie-cutter, political, or religious, self-encarceration. When the walls come down, people have a chance to think for themselves, and live exciting and creative lives. Sadly, most lack curiousity, and never come close to understanding how beautifully the human brain can work when it’s not bombarded with bullshit every waking minute.
LikeLike
Mark, pull your head out. I never wrote that I can prove Newton wrong. I can prove Newton right, just as many have concerning 9/II. The fact that you don’t ‘get it’ really is the joke … On you. It’s appalling how much you assume the view of others and actually ignore the facts around you.
LikeLike
Oh, all right: I should not humor you, as I think you’re nuts. But let’s leave the philosophy department, where you now tell me you never said you were the best student ever, and go to engineering, where you took a few courses. Did you ever earn a degree, by the way? In anything?
We’re talking about a building with steel trusses, an inner core of 47 very thick beams, and an outer wall of steel beams. It’s overbuilt, redundant, designed to withstand the impact of a 707, the largest commercial airliner of that time. We’re talking about an aircraft weighing several tons, made mostly of aluminum, and not capable of flying at more than 250 knots or so at that altitude, but which was said to be going almost 500 mph. The story is that the two collided, that the building offered no resistance, that all parts of the aircraft were destroyed, and that even the wing tips, the lightest part, were absorbed by the building, leaving a cartoon-like imprint.
Newton says that it does not matter which object moves or is stationary, and that the action of either creates an equal and opposite reaction in the other. You are saying that Newton didn’t say that, just like you never wrote a post on your blog, which I guess I never read, about your philosophy studies, your 4.0 average, and your teachers commenting that you were perhaps the best ever there.
This is why I think you’re just plain nuts, but go ahead now, and tell me why Newton predicts what happens in that gif.
LikeLike
Ad Hominems are pointless when discussing physics, Mark.
Actually, if you’d bother to learn a thing or two, Newton’s law states quite clearly that motion matters. F =F. F = m times a. A is a function of motion. Have you ever even bothered to consider, in your incurious life, how things actually work? Do kindly tell us how a 10 pound saw blade can cut down a 1 ton tree. Anything? Do you have anything? How can a 5 ounce ceramic blade cut through a tin can? How can a one ounce steel can opener slice the top off of a 1 steel pound can? These are not inappropriate or untoward questions, Tokarski. They are right to the point you seem committed to missing.
Quit insulting me, and answer the obvious questions that you raise, please.
LikeLike
I seriously think you are nuts, and now I’m sure you never even got a degree, as you would have been all over that. And I am not the one who is so incurious as to blindly follow leaders. That would be you.
A ten lb saw can cut down a tree because the tree is made of wood, the saw of metal, a far denser material. A ceramic blade can cut through a tin can (I assume you are posing a valid example) if the ceramic is not so brittle as to shatter, so that it can be forced through the tin. (Ceramic can be made very hard and withstands high heat, but brittleness is a problem.) And I can cut the tops off of tin cans with a metal can opener because one is hardened steel, the other tin.
Aluminum is softer than steel. I cannot cut down a ten ton lamp post with a saw made of wood, no matter how fast it goes. WTF kind of Newtonian physics did you study? You are the perfect example of the typical American, other than you are such an asshole and most are not – you have completely allowed your mind to be governed by the authority posturing of others. You’re not thinking your own thoughts. Believing is seeing.
LikeLike
ha ha, I wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t in writing.
Rob is clueless.
LikeLike
It’s just the perfect example, however, of how we twist our perceptions to agree with authority figures, no matter how absurd.
LikeLike
I agree. It’s like a repeat of the “smashing pumpkin” video except this is purely psychological abdication of ones senses without any visual prompting.
LikeLike
I don’t think Newton said what you think he said. Speed matters.
Water can cut through steel. I’d show you a video but you’d probably claim it was CGI.
LikeLike
I’ll remember that the next time I spill a glass of water, that it might cause a hole in the floor. I think you are talking about erosion. They do use water to cool blades as they cut through metal, but they do not use water as a kinetic force to cut metal.
I do know where the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone came from, and that water did that.
Now no one is saying that the building would not be damaged by being hit by an airliner. The reason for the huge redundancy in construction of the Towers was that the Empire State Building had been hit by a plane years before, in the days of propellers, and they wanted to be sure that the building could withstand modern jets of the day, the 707. So a real jet hitting it would damage the building, but the building would absorb the blow in a spider web fashion, and the force directed back at the jet would cause it to crumple, perhaps explode, and identifiable parts would be everywhere below.
And remember, it makes no difference what is in motion, what is stationary. Plane hits building, building damaged, plane crushed. What happened in the gif is impossible. Period.
LikeLike
Again, I’d post a video, but I’m sure you’ll say it’s CGI. Either that or my mind’s being controlled right now… and THERE IS NO VIDEO.
LikeLike
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm
For steel I believe they use an abrasive jet, water mixed with abrasive elements.
For softer metals they can use just water.
LikeLike
Very interesting. But does a fine stream of water directed at metal at Mach 3 (+-1000 mph) give evidence that a jet airliner can pass through a steel building without resistance? What happened in that video is impossible, cannot happen, and therefore did not happen.
LikeLike
“But does a fine stream of water directed at metal at Mach 3 (+-1000 mph) give evidence that a jet airliner can pass through a steel building without resistance?”
No it doesn’t.
There is so much that is so hinkey with the official 9/11/01 conspiracy theory that I’m amazed the sheer force of so many unbelievable events, coincidences, anomalies, and unlikely scenarios hasn’t aroused more suspicion in more people.
LikeLike
You’ve heard of MIHOP and LIHOP – Made It Happen on Purpose and Let it Happen on Purpose. There is also “MITOP”, or Made It Transparent on Purpose. That is part of the psy-op, it is said, that we who are skeptical can see the ease with which people are bought in, and get discouraged add give up. The plane being absorbed by the tower, then, is MITOP.
LikeLike
Oh no doubt there is a video and some scientific phenomenon that I don’t understand. Go ahead and put up the video and I’ll be happy to observe and take it in. But you do know that the pumpkin video was faked up, right?
And whatever it is, it does not mean that jet aircraft fly through steel buildings without resistance.IT … DID … NOT … HAPPEN. It is impossible. Try shooting a gun at a lamp post, see what happens. Lamp post dented, bullet flattened.
People get really upset about implying that they don’t think their own thoughts. But I’ll give you an example: The “Tea Party” did not spring up spontaneously. It was suggested via TV and people, thinking they were acting independently, followed certain leaders – it was all done by suggestion and group think. I speculate on why – that Obama, who is quite a right winger, needed to be perceived as a lefty, so that opposition from the right wing TP nuts gave the appearance of Obama being their opposite.
That’s thought control. “Killing” bin Laden was thought control, a psy-op. If you ever listen to talk radio, all you will hear all day long is people echoing ideas that did not originate in their own brains. We are only talking about deficits because it is suggested to us that they are a problem and they want to attack social programs. “Free markets” is a meme, and not something real, but we all think they are real. There is no terrorist threat against America or Americans .. it’s all imaginary. On and on … deal with it.
LikeLike
And my whole point during our discussion was that you are no different than me, yet you view yourself as superior or somehow original. You’re not. You have the same understanding of science as an average non-physicist adult, yet you make up for your lack of knowledge with a foolish certainty in things you know not. But you have not for a second comprehended my argument.
And yeah, that pumpkin video- totally CGI. Probably part of a government plot to make Mark Tokarski look foolish.
LikeLike
The pumpkin video was CGI. How can you not see that? The object shot from the cannon is not orange. The van has a erratic outline around it due to it being superimposed via computer imaging.
And I can show you, step by step, how the gif of the jet going into the tower above was constructed. But to do that I’d have to send you to a site where they offer up evidence, and you would not go there, but rather to a “debunking” site where they would reassure you that everything you know is true, and then you would come back and say “I looked at the evidence and don’t buy it.” Debunking is part of the thought control regime, to keep you away from the evidence. The evidence causes cognitive dissonance, extreme discomfort, so they offer you comfort. They know you go to debunking sites, and not to the evidence itself. They know you better than you know yourself.
I do not have to be a physicist to see what is impossible. It is not “foolish certainty” to be skeptical of official truth. In fact, official truth ought to be held up to higher standards of evidence than anything, as government has so much incentive to keep us in the dark.
Again, fire a bullet at a lamp post.
LikeLike
Do not conflate skepticism with foolish certainty. No one faults you for being a skeptic – I have questions about several parts of the official story too. It’s that you’ve turned your skepticism into a religion in which anyone who disagrees with you is having their mind controlled by Satan… I mean the government.
LikeLike
Do not confuse thought control with Satan. It’s standard operating procedure, and I think the only reason we have been so successful as a species. But it is both our friend and enemy. I’ll put it to you bluntly: The great mass of people are ignorant and uneducated. Individually we might find them smart enough to make a living and build cars and do tax returns, but in matters of international relations and domestic policy, very few take the time to study. At the same time, we think of ourselves as a democratic republic, and people need to believe that they have a role in self-governance. But even if we did take time and study affairs closely, we are also emotional and likely to change our minds at the drop of a hat. Countries cannot be run like that – worse yet, leaders cannot have public opinion interfering with management of a country.
So public opinion is rarely heeded. It is managed. The control of public opinion is a studied science that came about in the early 20th century. I’ll cite Edward Bernays below, as I cannot cross-copy right now for unknown reasons. Anyway, we are given “issues” to debate, and politicians dutifully talk about those issues as a distraction, as the politicians are not even running the country. We are fed ideas via suggestion, and are constantly manipulated via entertainment and “news.” We are kept in the dark about the most important issues of the day, such as the reasons for war and aggression.
It is about the only system that can work, but it only works if we have good leaders who want what is best for us. That ended decades ago, maybe never existed. We are now a “pathocracy,” or under control of psychopaths – not the public faces we know, but quiet power. Many trace this to the death of JFK, but I tend to think it goes back to the end of World War II. We more or less created the monster that rules us now during that war. We are slowly becoming fascist, with the Bill of Rights becoming a meaningless piece of paper. It’s going on right in the open now, with drones in all major cities and Obama claiming the right to detain us without charges and murder us without any legal procedure beforehand. And the reason he can do this is becuase we are afraid, and we are afraid due to 9/11.
It’s not new. It’s as old as time. If I told you that the people of North Korea are in a thought control regime, which they obviously are, you’d have no trouble with the concept. Because I say we are them, they are us, you’re troubled. Deal with it.
LikeLike
Here is Edward Bernays, the “Father of Modern Advertising,” writing about what I call “thought control” back in 1928. Keep in mind that he was part of an emerging science, that women had just gotten the vote, so that leadership was scared shitless of the public. In addition, the Creel Commission had just run the first successful agitprop campaign to get the US to enter World War I, so successful in fact that even they were surprised. This model would become the dominant propaganda model throughout the world, used not only in politics, but advertising as well. (If you don’t like the expression “thought control,” which I happen to think as the best descriptor, you can think of it as “manufacturing consent” (Lippmann), or “necessary illusions (Niebuhr). In any case, it is a set of practices designed to get the public at large to think as leadership wants them to think.
LikeLike
I understand your argument. I just think it’s a cop-out. That’s all.
LikeLike
I have failed to adequately face my responsibility here? I do not respond to your arguments about my state of mind, my certainty, as you call it, because you are not in a position to pass judgement, not having exposed yourself to the evidence. That is the cop out. Ans please, going to debunking sites is not exposure, but reassurance.
I’ve done my homework, stated my case, defended my assertions, and all against the backdrop that the people who disagree will not look at the evidence. That is a state of mind, the emperor’s new clothes. It was apparently this way in 1837, when Andersen published that story. Things have not changed.
LikeLike
Hurricanes routinely head up the east coast and then out to sea. Meteorologists can predict with a high degree of accuracy that they are going to do this based on the position of the jet stream and areas of high pressure, which force large systems of low pressure to go that way almost every time. As a result, the news media does not make a big deal out of these storms. It happens every year. I know this. I didn’t go to a debunking site to figure it out. I pay attention to these things, and have been doing so for years.
But Dr. Judy Wood has informed you that this is both anomalous behavior for hurricanes and for the news media. She’s full of shit. But you took her word for it.
We are the same. Get used to it.
LikeLike
There were radical fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic fields at precisely the times when the holes were created in the buildings and when they turned to dust. The evidence surrounding that area has abundant evidence of directed energy effects, which are electrical events. These would include toasted cars, twisted metal, plasma that does not give off heat, buildings that appear to be giving off shaving lather before turning to dust, and much, much more. A large electrical event would explain the magnometer fluctuations. Hurricanes are electrical phenomenon, which is why so much lightening is associated with them. So the coincidence of a hurricane being off the east coast that day is indeed weird. But no one says they know that for sure. Since you have not read any of Dr. Wood’s work, you have no basis for your claim that I am merely believing her without adequate skepticism. Until you look at that evidence, that is mere defensive posturing on your part.
What is weird is that the hurricane was not reported. Since the national hurricane center did not know its path, it seems likely that local weather reporters did not either. And hurricanes are news feeding frenzies, as there is no politics or power involved so that there are no filters stopping reporters. But they did not report on this one.
The amount of evidence is astounding. That you cannot bring yourself to look at it is evidence of thought control.
LikeLike
By the way, to buttress your case, please provide evidence of a hurricane that came that close to NY that was not reported on in local news. You said it’s routine, so this should be easy.
LikeLike
We all remember Hurricane Irene. But do you remember Katia? Maria? Ophelia?
Me neither.
LikeLike
Tell me how this picture of Erin can be ignored by NY news and weather people.
LikeLike
I’m stunned that you would ignore everything I’ve just told you and just direct me to a random picture. Actually, no I’m not. That’s the MO of every conspiracy theorist in the history of mankind. It’s the definition of ignoring the forests for the trees.
There were three hurricanes and two tropical storms in 2011 that passed as close or closer to New York than Hurricane Erin did in 2001. And we didn’t hear about them. That’s because they weren’t a threat, and this shit happens all the time. Every single year. And you never hear about it.
You have no idea what you’re talking about here. You’ve taken the word of someone you trust. That’s all well and good. You’re no meteorologist, and you certainly don’t pay as much attention to this stuff as someone like, say… me. And hey, Dr. Wood may be right on some other things that I haven’t researched. But she’s wrong on this one. Completely, 100%, totally wrong. And I’ve shown you the evidence. And you’ve chosen to ignore it in favor of a picture. Enjoy that.
LikeLike
There were also three other hurricanes in 2001 that passed as close as Erin to NYC. Who could forget Hurricane Humberto? That was one of those not-close-to-ever-hitting-NYC-at-all Hurricanes that the media reported breathlessly, right?
LikeLike
There is nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist, as powerful people often act in secret. The shunning of people who are alert to leaks of secrets is part of the secrecy process, part of thought control. That idea, a “conspiracy theory” and the notion that you think there is something wrong with it, is an idea implanted in you by others. You won’t find notions like that in other countries. It’s part of American indoctrination only.
This is a picture of hurricane Eric on 9/11/01. I cannot imagine that it would not merit a mention in NY news, but if you say so … and anyway, you’re not listening to a word I say – it is not that there is a hurricane, but that it coincided with other magnetic, seismic, plasma, molecular dissociation and energy-related events. Do you understand that, having not looked at the evidence, that there were a host of unexplained phenomena that day, so that a hurricane off the coast of NY was also unusual when taken in light of everything else. You do get that.
Don ‘t care about tropical storms. Erin was a very powerful hurricane. Now, what were the names of the hurricanes that passed NYC in 2011 that were “close or closer” that were not mentioned. I want names and I am going to look at NHC photos. You are coming on a bit strong here, so I’m thinking you are overstating your case.
LikeLike
Need a photo of Humberto.
LikeLike
I’m giving you too much here. Doing jumping jacks too.
You’ll also notice, if you pay attention to these things (which you don’t and never have), that hurricanes that hit that far up on the east coast (which is incredibly rare) usually come up from the south and hug the coast much closer than Erin did. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes) You’ll notice that not a single one has been as far east as Erin and subsequently turned west to make landfall. It really, seriously never happens. Learn about these things.
No more jumping jacks. Some stuff you’ve just gotta figure out yourself.
LikeLike
See below
LikeLike
I was thinking that the plane was just swallowed up by the devil.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/09/wtc-devil-and-ms-word-illusion.html?utm_source=2leep&utm_medium=2leep&utm_campaign=2leep
LikeLike
I’ve got an affidavit filed by John Lear, son of the founder of Lear Jet, offering technical evidence on why the events seen on TV were not real, and that no plane hit the tower. However, Swede, it is four pages and single-spaced.
LikeLike
Erin was much bigger. But again, you are running a distraction/misdirection campaign here. I do wish you would look at all the evidence, which takes considerable time and effort, and them deal with it as a whole. And Dr. Wood draws no conclusions about Erin other than the dog that did not bark. But what happened to the seven WTC buildings that day is was destruction by some weapon we’ve never seen before that required a huge amount of new energy, and did not leave enough debris to register a significant seismic signal. Building 7 left hardly any seismic signal. In other words, they had been subjected to some kind of molecular dissociation.
Ask yourself “What is it that prevents me from looking at the evidence?” Dr. Wood conjectures three possibilities: 1) you have poor problem-solving skills, not uncommon when everyone is studying for a life-course-determining multiple choice test; 2) group think, and 3) the implications are terrifying. I’m going with 2 and 3. Go look at the evidence.
LikeLike
No. I’m not going to do your jumping jacks. She is wrong on this, and so are you. It’s possible that the rest of your evidence, when looked at, proves that an energy device was used that day. Since you are both able to be so confident and yet so full of shit on the hurricane issue throws into doubt everything else you say. But hey, you could be right. Whatever.
You are 100% wrong on this. Erin was a category 2 storm at the time your picture was taken – not strong, although it sure looks pretty. Not a single hurricane has ever been that far east of the NE coast and subsequently turned west to make landfall. It’s never happened. That’s why the media ignored it. That’s why they always ignore it. Every time. So the storm’s path was not an anomaly, and the media’s behavior was not an anomaly.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, and it’s time to stop pretending you do.
LikeLike
They are not “jumping jacks.” It is what a normally inquisitive person does. WTF scares you? I’ve learned a lot about hurricanes from this exchange, and not a bit of it has scared me. You’ve read an awful lot into what I might think about that. You’ll notice in the long post about all the evidence that had been gathered by researchers that I wrote last November, the one you never read, that Hurricane Erin was never mentioned. There’s too much else going on. But it is a goddamned curiosity on a day when there were amazing electrical and magnetic phenomena going on. OK? Do you know anything at all about coincidence? It’s not that it happened, but that it happened on that day in conjunction with so many other things. The question is: Are these related phenomena? And the answer is unknown. Dr. Wood only gathers evidence and does not speculate, which is why I like her.
If you ever have a curiosity impulse, I’ll lend you her book, Were Did the Towers Go? Then you can judge for yourself instead of just shitting on me about it. I paid $48 for it, and it is now selling for $1,162.50 new and $420.00 used. And no, she sold out months ago. These are reseller prices. There is very high demand for the book, as it is over 500 pages of nothing but evidence without speculation.
Or go to a Judy Wood debunking site.
LikeLike
Steve T, What are you contending that Dr wood asserted that you are asserting she was wrong about?
Is she wrong to say that a hurricane is essentially a natural Tesla Coil?
Was she inaccurate to claim that thunder and lightning were reported at all three area airports,
(Newark, Kennedy, and LaGuardia) on the morning of 9/11/01 proving that a static field from the hurricane was present at the WTC on the morning of 9/11/01 ?
Are her pictures of the hurricane false?
Are her diagrams of the hurricane’s path and progress false or incorrect?
Is her claim that Erin was under-reported false or somehow incorrect?
I don’t understand what you are asserting that Dr Wood was wrong about as concerns hurricane Erin, Steve T.
LikeLike
That’s because you have not read anything I’ve written.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Steve W has looked at the evidence. It changed his outlook. You have not read everything has written.
LikeLike
I read what you wrote. You said Dr Wood is wrong about this. I want to know in what way she is wrong?
“No. I’m not going to do your jumping jacks. She is wrong on this, and so are you. It’s possible that the rest of your evidence, when looked at, proves that an energy device was used that day.”
Dr Wood never has claimed to prove a directed energy weapon was used on 9/11/01. She has claimed to have evidence
What she says is that she knows where all of the anomalous effects observed at and about the WTC on and about 9/11/01 have been duplicated in a lab. From powered metal, to cool plasma-like fires, to fuming, to levitation, to metal turning jelly-like, to far higher than background levels of tritium, to the fusion of unlike materials, etc.
She says that in 1979 John Hutchison discovered a unique set of phenomena in his lab while attempting to recreate the experiments of Nicola Tesla. He created a static field using either a couple of Tesla coils or a Van de Graf generator and then disturbed the field with high frequency radio waves. Dubbed the Hutchison effect, these phenomena have been studied by numerous scientists as well as our Dept of Defense.
Your dad said Erin was curious. He said it’s a natural mystery. He may find it curious or a mystery. She didn’t say those things. So maybe your thinks it’s curious or a natural mystery.
But you also blamed Dr Wood. You said she was wrong. How was she wrong, what is she wrong about? I don’t know Dr Wood personally and I’d love to hear some good honest criticism of her work.
LikeLike
I said it was a curiosity when taken into account with all of the other events of that day, but by itself was not a long-odds event. It is not a natural mystery.
We are not dealing with scientific phenomena here. We are dealing with cognitive dissonance. Steve and Jack and Monty and Ed and others will not go look at evidence because it creates discomfort. Instead, they go to “debunking” sites that give them comfort, and never confront the evidence. It’s a safe harbor.
And it is the human condition, at least as far as I can see. Most people just accept what they see on their TV’s as reality, and never have to confront doubt. But when called out, when challenged, the walls go up. Steve, to his credit, is willing to admit to some leaks in the dike, but to the rest, official truth is God’s truth.
LikeLike
Jennifer Michael Hecht wrote a lovely book called “Doubt: A History” that merely retraces the steps of great people in history who doubted conventional thinking and often paid with their lives. I drew these quotes from her book:
There is nothing new under the sun.
LikeLike
Erin is not a curiosity. Take it off of your list of weird shit that happened that day.
LikeLike
Yes it is. One, it sat stationary all day that day. Two, and this is where coincidence plays a role, the odds of Erin be there may not be long, but those odds AND the odds of a large directed energy event requiring a huge energy source AND significant fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic fields makes it a curiosity. From a statistical standpoint the odds of two events happening at once are calculated by multiplication of the denominator. So, the chance of rolling two dice and getting a 12 are 1/36, or 6×6. The chance of doing it twice in a row are 1/1296. But that is because the two events are related to each other – the same thing has to happen twice. If two events are not related, that calculation cannot be used.
So the question is: Is the presence of Erin RELATED to the other events of that day? Given the once-in-a-lifetime nature of that day, I cannot remove it from weird shit happening that day. And again, I do not speculate as to what was done. I cannot know things like that.
And again, if you’ve not seen the evidence, you’re out in left field.
LikeLike
Even if Hurricane Erin was stationary that day (it wasn’t), it wouldn’t be unusual. Hurricanes stay stationary when boxed in by high pressure ridges. This is why they can be so damaging in places like Guatemala and Honduras, because they will just sit there and dump rain for days on end, causing mudslides and mass casualties. I guess those could be as a result of energy weapons too, but I doubt it.
Dr. Judy Wood, in her presentation that you linked to (and I watched), said that it was unusual for the hurricane to head east when it is so close to making landfall. She is wrong. There has never been a hurricane that far east that has made landfall ever. She said it’s strange that it was stationary. On that point, she’s wrong on two fronts – it wasn’t stationary and it wouldn’t be unusual even if it was. She’s either stupid or lying on this front – and although I’m tempted to go with option B, I’ll stick with A. She doesn’t have the foggiest idea what she’s talking about.
I’m not talking about your other evidence. I’m talking about this one piece. Your inability to admit that you are wrong on this throws into doubt everything else you put up in relation to 9/11. You refuse to take the word of someone who actually pays attention to this stuff in favor of your trusted sources who obviously know nothing about hurricane patterns. This makes it clear that you are unable to get out of your conspiracy bubble.
There is nothing unusual about Hurricane Erin’s path or the lack of reporting on it. It happens every single year. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. The odds of a hurricane being in the Atlantic during Hurricane season are high, and the odds of it heading out to sea when it is that far off the coast are 100%. You may have a conspiracy on your hands, but the hurricane wasn’t a part of it.
After all the words we’ve written on this stuff, I’m actually really surprised at your inability to eat your hat here. You’re wrong, and it’s time to get over it.
LikeLike
Well, for one thing, I don’t want to eat my hat because I did not bring this up. You did. I did a core dump back in November in a post called “Psy-Op” and tried to gather up everything I had learned to that point. I deliberately decided to leave Erin out because it is too weird. Dr. Wood was also advised to stay away from it, as people would use that as a credibility lever, but she thought it was raw data and worth putting out there. That’ all she does – compile data and offer evidence.
I read her chapter on Erin, and was frankly confused. She went into some higher math to calculate Accumulated Cyclone Energy, and as soon as I see a formula using a summation symbol, exponents top and bottom of fractions, my brain goes dead. And her major interest was field effects, Tesla coils and all of that, the subtext obviously being that Erin might have been the source for the energy that destoryed seven buildings that day. But the implication is weather control, and if that technology exists, it is secret. The defense department is usually years, even decades ahead of the public in technology, as they are on a constant quest to weaponize any new development.
She is not full of shit about Erin, and her data, as far as I can see in her book is all sourced to government [science] agencies. “Stationary” might be relative – her words are The data show that Erin slowed down as it approached New York, and then remained almost stationary during the morning of 9/11. …For the 24 hours surrounding the events of 9/11, Hurricane Erin maintained the same wind speed, the same pressure, and approximately the same distance from New York City.
And again, yes I know that hurricanes go up the east coast and them out to sea, and that it is not unusual for one not to make landfall, and I have to take your word that meteorologists often don’t report them, as I have no way to access that kind of data.
The chapter of the book is actually fascinating as I look at it now, and if you are a weather nerd, you’d like it. Erin was apparently used as an experiment for a study to improve hurricane tracking predictions, allowing meteorologists to provide better warning to the public. It was analyzed during the fourth Convection and Moisture Experiment (CAMEX-4), which took place from August 16 through September 24th of 2001*. Researchers from ten universities, NASA and NOAA were all united in studying it. I’m quoting there roughly as I don’t want to type out that long passage.
Anyway, I think you grossly underestimate the esteemed Dr. Wood’s scientific creds here. I wish I could just plop the book in your lap and let you have a look at it.
_____________________
*Every event of 9/11, from fake planes hitting the towers to a missile attack on the Pentagon to air traffic controllers tracking fake blips was encased in some sort of practice operation going on that day. That needs to be said.
LikeLike
“After all the words we’ve written on this stuff, I’m actually really surprised at your inability to eat your hat here. You’re wrong, and it’s time to get over it.”
The avoidance of cognitive dissonance.
LikeLike